LONG DISTANCE AGREEMENT IN HINDI-URDUw This paper ...

762RAJESH BHATTmatrix verb has a nominative subject, LDA is not possible. In thesecases infinitival agreement is also not possible.(7)a. no LDA and no infinitival agreement:Shahrukh [t:ehnii kaat:-naa] chaah-taa ThaaShahrukh branch.F cut-Inf.M want-Pfv.MSg be.Pst.MSg‘Shahrukh wants to cut the branch.’b. infinitival agreement but no LDA:*Shahrukh [t:ehnii kaat:-nii] chaah-taa thaaShahrukh branch.F cut-Inf.F want-Pfv.MSg be.Pst.MSgc. LDA but no infinitival agreement:*Shahrukh [t:ehnii kaat:-naa] chaah-tii thiiShahrukh branch.F cut-Inf.M want-Pfv.FSg be.Pst.MSgd. LDA and infinitival agreement:*Shahrukh [t:ehnii kaat:-nii] chaah-tii thiiShahrukh branch.F cut-Inf.F want-Pfv.FSg be.Pst.MSgIt can be concluded from the discussion in this section that infinitivalagreement is parasitic on LDA. Furthermore, when LDA takes place,infinitival agreement must take place.2.3. One Previous Analysis of Hindi-Urdu LDA: Mahajan (1989)2.3.1. The Basic AnalysisThe central idea behind Mahajan’s analysis of agreement in Hindi-Urdu is that the perfective participle, the imperfective/habitual participle,and the infinitival verb differ in their ability to assign accusativecase. For Mahajan, perfective participles can never assign caseto their objects. Imperfective participles always assign case to theirobjects. Finally, infinitival verbs optionally assign case to their objects.Of course, the above three-way distinction is relevant only fortransitive verbs. Unergative intransitives do not have objects, andunaccusatives do not assign case to their objects, period.Since for Mahajan (1989), perfective participles cannot assigncase, something else must assign case to the objects of transitiveperfective participles. This something else is an Agr 0 head in associationwith finite tense.(8)a. [ IP Sugato-ne 1 [ AgrP kitaab 2 [ VP t 1 t 2 t v ]t agr ] par:h-ii]Sugato-Erg book.F read-Pfv.FSg‘Sugato read the book.’